5 ms·

I think everyone is getting this wrong. This is all posturing. The Florida legislature knows perfectly well that it can never unwind Reedy Creek. But if they

by lisper 5y ago

I think everyone is getting this wrong. This is all posturing. The Florida legislature knows perfectly well that it can never unwind Reedy Creek. But if they can make a good show of trying, then that will earn points with their base, and when the courts shut them down they can blame "activist liberal judges" for their failure, despite the fact that it was a foregone conclusion. But the perception will be that they tried to fight the good fight against an evil overreaching corporation which was trying to corrupt Florida's innocent youth. All of the liberals celebrating Disney's imminent "victory" are completely missing this bigger picture.

splitstud 5y ago
LordDragonfang 5y ago
I feel like I've increasingly seen "pass legislation in bad faith that you know will be struck down" as a conservative legislative tactic (see recent abortion laws, bill curtailing voting rights) and I can't help but feel there should be some sort of consequence for consistently acting in bad faith.
- lisper 5y ago
  The consequence is supposed to be that you get voted out of office. Unfortunately, there seems to be quite an audience for bad-faith politics nowadays. And I don't think this is unique to conservatives, and I also don't think that your examples are good ones. It seems increasingly clear that anti-abortion bills, for example, are not being passed in bad faith. The Republican Party really is intent on delivering on its promise to overturn Roe, and it looks like they are going to succeed. On the other side, I'm pretty disappointed in how Merrick Garland is handling the events of Jan 6, 20201. But we should probably shut this conversation down because we are getting very close to violating the HN prohibition on political discussions (if we have not already crossed that line).
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > the HN prohibition on political discussions While there was a brief experiment with such a prohibition, the planned end date was a long time ago (and the experiment was aborted early.)
kcplate 5y ago
> All of the liberals celebrating Disney's imminent "victory" are completely missing this bigger picture. The optics of this…and things like the Musk/Twitter hand wringing serves a single purpose: It’s forcing the Democratic Party to start making 180 degree public shifts of some of their classic positions on things like large corporate sweetheart deals and limits on free speech/censorship. Right now, the progressive left and the Democratic Party seems to more closely resemble the moral majority right of the ‘80s and ‘90s than the Democratic Party of the last 50 years at least in adherence to a specific dogma with very little if any tolerance for contrary opinion. I think its sad. Its driving liberals out of the Democratic Party because this new breed of progressive leftist is definitely not liberal.
- lisper 5y ago
  I probably shouldn't be responding to this because it's skating dangerously close to the HN prohibition on political discussion (if we haven't already crossed that line) but I have to say that from where I sit most of the intolerance for dissent in the Democratic party seems to me to be coming from the left and not the center.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    If I wasn’t clear…that was my point as well.
- LordDragonfang 5y ago
  >It’s forcing the Democratic Party to start making 180 degree public shifts of some of their classic positions on things like [...] limits on free speech/censorship. [...] Its driving liberals out of the Democratic Party I'm unclear on what you're trying to express here. "Free speech" is a liberal value, and the topic at hand is an anti-free-speech, pro-censorship bill by the opposing party. It seems one of these two things don't match.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    I was referring to the numerous stories I have seen in the media by left leaning pundits since Musk’s offer arguing censorship as a “good thing”.
no-dr-onboard 5y ago
There has to be some sort of cognitive bias towards believing that a majority of political decisions are "posturing" or facades. If I'm being honest I fall for this interpretation way more often than I'm comfortable with.
- lisper 5y ago
  There has to be some sort of cognitive bias that because someone says that one particular political decision is posturing that they therefore must be advancing the idea that "a majority" of political decisions are posturing.
  - no-dr-onboard 5y ago
    I think you're misunderstanding me. What I'm trying to express is that whenever someone opines that something "is posturing", I'm heavily inclined to agree.
    - lisper 5y ago
      OK, but that's not at all what you said. You said there was a cognitive bias towards believing in posturing, which means that these beliefs (that political decisions are posturing) are both prevalent and likely to be wrong.

by lisper 5y ago

splitstud 5y ago

LordDragonfang 5y ago

I feel like I've increasingly seen "pass legislation in bad faith that you know will be struck down" as a conservative legislative tactic (see recent abortion laws, bill curtailing voting rights) and I can't help but feel there should be some sort of consequence for consistently acting in bad faith.

lisper 5y ago
The consequence is supposed to be that you get voted out of office. Unfortunately, there seems to be quite an audience for bad-faith politics nowadays. And I don't think this is unique to conservatives, and I also don't think that your examples are good ones. It seems increasingly clear that anti-abortion bills, for example, are not being passed in bad faith. The Republican Party really is intent on delivering on its promise to overturn Roe, and it looks like they are going to succeed. On the other side, I'm pretty disappointed in how Merrick Garland is handling the events of Jan 6, 20201. But we should probably shut this conversation down because we are getting very close to violating the HN prohibition on political discussions (if we have not already crossed that line).
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > the HN prohibition on political discussions While there was a brief experiment with such a prohibition, the planned end date was a long time ago (and the experiment was aborted early.)

kcplate 5y ago

> All of the liberals celebrating Disney's imminent "victory" are completely missing this bigger picture. The optics of this…and things like the Musk/Twitter hand wringing serves a single purpose: It’s forcing the Democratic Party to start making 180 degree public shifts of some of their classic positions on things like large corporate sweetheart deals and limits on free speech/censorship. Right now, the progressive left and the Democratic Party seems to more closely resemble the moral majority right of the ‘80s and ‘90s than the Democratic Party of the last 50 years at least in adherence to a specific dogma with very little if any tolerance for contrary opinion. I think its sad. Its driving liberals out of the Democratic Party because this new breed of progressive leftist is definitely not liberal.

lisper 5y ago
I probably shouldn't be responding to this because it's skating dangerously close to the HN prohibition on political discussion (if we haven't already crossed that line) but I have to say that from where I sit most of the intolerance for dissent in the Democratic party seems to me to be coming from the left and not the center.
- kcplate 5y ago
  If I wasn’t clear…that was my point as well.
LordDragonfang 5y ago
>It’s forcing the Democratic Party to start making 180 degree public shifts of some of their classic positions on things like [...] limits on free speech/censorship. [...] Its driving liberals out of the Democratic Party I'm unclear on what you're trying to express here. "Free speech" is a liberal value, and the topic at hand is an anti-free-speech, pro-censorship bill by the opposing party. It seems one of these two things don't match.
- kcplate 5y ago
  I was referring to the numerous stories I have seen in the media by left leaning pundits since Musk’s offer arguing censorship as a “good thing”.

no-dr-onboard 5y ago

There has to be some sort of cognitive bias towards believing that a majority of political decisions are "posturing" or facades. If I'm being honest I fall for this interpretation way more often than I'm comfortable with.

lisper 5y ago
There has to be some sort of cognitive bias that because someone says that one particular political decision is posturing that they therefore must be advancing the idea that "a majority" of political decisions are posturing.
- no-dr-onboard 5y ago
  I think you're misunderstanding me. What I'm trying to express is that whenever someone opines that something "is posturing", I'm heavily inclined to agree.
  - lisper 5y ago
    OK, but that's not at all what you said. You said there was a cognitive bias towards believing in posturing, which means that these beliefs (that political decisions are posturing) are both prevalent and likely to be wrong.